Pages

Magic Weekend will be held February 10-13, featuring both a Pro Tour and a Grand Prix.

The first Magic Weekend is simply too big to be contained in one webcast, so we're doing two! The titanic Player of the Year showdown between Brad Nelson and Guillaume Matignon is on Saturday, and the conclusion of Pro Tour Paris will be shown on Sunday.

The Saturday webcast for the Player of the Year is February 12 at 9 a.m. local time. Find the closest city to see when that is in your area:

Los Angeles: Midnight Friday/Saturday

Chicago: 2 a.m.

New York: 3 a.m.

Rio de Janeiro: 6 a.m.

London: 8 a.m.

Rome/Berlin: 9 a.m.

Moscow: 11 a.m.

Sydney: 7 p.m.

The Sunday webcast for Pro Tour Paris is February 13 at 2:30 p.m. local time. The semifinals and finals will be streamed live, and the webcast will also feature highlights of the Player of the Year showdown and the Top 8 quarterfinals.

guys at least make sure whoever writing these reports know how to play the game. look at this final paragraph. black casting zenith with clone shells revealing golems and spitter, but somehow he is losing (presumably to the grindclock) because he is extending his hand in defeat but then he is 2-1.

Black cast an emergency Black Sun's Zenith for three, but the flurry of activity that followed had both his Clone Shells opened to reveal the Fume Spitter and Precursor Golem underneath, and Black extended the hand in defeat.

I still don't get why Wizards can't provide actual video coverage of PTs. If 3rd parties (read GGSlive) do it for free, why can't Wizards? You already fly people out to write coverage, why not put them on video, instead? Watching a match is a lot better than getting a 500 word summary of it.

A better question is, why is the coverage for these events so bad? Wizards spends well over a million dollars to put on a Pro Tour, yet they can't even bother covering (i.e. advertising it) particularly well. There is a demand for coverage. Several thousand people tune in to watch Starcitygames Open Series events, which are significantly less important. Get with the times, and get real video coverage of the event. You have the equipment already, as they do a live broadcast of the finals.

i bet they think they are doing a good job. Set aside the lack of live coverage, the match reports are awful and mostly inaccurate. Scoreboard updates are way late, and they cant use brian and rich to full capacity. so sad.

It's true. They seriously need to rethink how they do everything regarding Pro Tours. But even the video coverage is bad. You can't see any of the cards well enough to make them out and the frame they use is almost always behind. The camera is often aimed at players while something significant is happening on the board. (I give them credit, however, for attempting to show more of the matches during the top 8 rather than have someone walk around and occasionally report that something much more interesting than the match you're watching just ended.)

On top of that, the archive is the same poor resolution as the live stream because they won't have at least one of their encoders capturing in HD. I see why that is not an option live as network limitations are out of WOTC's control. For on-demand, however, there is no excuse for this. I am going to miss the top 8 this weekend for sure and if I want to watch any replays I will be treated to a grainy 320x240 frame size.

What they need to do is have someone come in and rethink the overall coverage from scratch. And if they are doing this all in-house then they should seriously consider vendorizing.

I enjoy Rich, and I could listen to him commentate all day. Even play by play on podcasts were clear enough to know what was going on w/out the video. I think most of us are used to how pro sports are broadcast. MTG would have to be broadcast more like Golf flipping between the matches (like the Worlds T8 was) while providing the hand/table coverage of poker. The trick is that MTG has a much more complicated board state than poker, so you would actually have to show that while keeping a mockup of the players hands in the bottom frame.

The cost, however comes with a lot more videography. A lot more cameras and a production crew that can put it togeather on the fly. One of the things I HATE about ggslive is all the random BS between matches, but without a roaming camera allowing commentators to be followed around viewing the floor, discussing the standings et. There really isn't that much to talk about.

I enjoy Rich, and I could listen to him commentate all day. Even play by play on podcasts were clear enough to know what was going on w/out the video. I think most of us are used to how pro sports are broadcast. MTG would have to be broadcast more like Golf flipping between the matches (like the Worlds T8 was) while providing the hand/table coverage of poker. The trick is that MTG has a much more complicated board state than poker, so you would actually have to show that while keeping a mockup of the players hands in the bottom frame.

The cost, however comes with a lot more videography. A lot more cameras and a production crew that can put it togeather on the fly. One of the things I HATE about ggslive is all the random BS between matches, but without a roaming camera allowing commentators to be followed around viewing the floor, discussing the standings et. There really isn't that much to talk about.

I don't like the talking in between matches on ggslive, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we get now, which is absolutely nothing. Wizards spends countless dollars paying for and marketing the pro tour. It's just mind boggling that they don't pay to have it broadcast. It is clearly not a particularly expensive endeavor, since GGSlive was doing it supported solely through donations. Wizards is even paying people to go out there and do coverage! Make BDM and Rich earn their keep, rather than doing 3 deck techs and a wrap up at the end of the day. So frustratring!

Thanks to Wizards for creating a forum thread for this event, and linking to it from the coverage pages! I appreciate being able to comment on the matches and see what other people are saying about the event. (Despite much of the discussion being complaints about the coverage. )

I enjoy Rich, and I could listen to him commentate all day. Even play by play on podcasts were clear enough to know what was going on w/out the video. I think most of us are used to how pro sports are broadcast. MTG would have to be broadcast more like Golf flipping between the matches (like the Worlds T8 was) while providing the hand/table coverage of poker. The trick is that MTG has a much more complicated board state than poker, so you would actually have to show that while keeping a mockup of the players hands in the bottom frame.

That would be hard to do the mockup, but the sports comparison is not far off. With Rich and Brian they have the classic play-by-play/color man setup covered. Rich's voice is perfect for the play-by-play as long as he stays in his lane and feeds Brian properly. Too often both commentators go off and tangents until Brian says something like "hey we should talk about what just happened in this game." And if the camera happened to be in a close-up of one of the players flicking his cards during that stretch, it's often hard to piece together what just happened no matter how much attention is paid by the viewer. (Compare this to the 2000 Super Bowl, the best game no one got to see because the camera spent too much time on Mrs Warner and Jeff Fisher while the game was being played, and Al Michaels and Boomer Esaison spent the game arguing instead of telling us what we missed.)

As far as "listening" to Rich, I think that's the key. They have to assume in the booth that we cant see anything because much of the time it is hard to make things out on the table with the terrible resolution and glare of the card sleeves. That means summing up the game state more frequently and declaring each card as it is played. If they do that there is still enough time for all the special-interest elements. They have the pieces for a good announcing team in place, if only they prioritize correctly.

Argh Rich and Brian are demonstrating why I don't like limited as a webcast. This is the first block in years where I am not that familiar with the cards and can't see them anyway. and they sit there are babble on tangents, sometimes making only passing references to the game. I am losing huge chunks of the whats and the whys.

@zpikduM: I would make sure nothing non-essential is running, wired conenction, that's about all I could say. Hope that gets it corrected for you.

Argh Rich and Brian are demonstrating why I don't like limited as a webcast. This is the first block in years where I am not that familiar with the cards and can't see them anyway. and they sit there are babble on tangents, sometimes making only passing references to the game. I am losing huge chunks of the whats and the whys.

@zpikduM: I would make sure nothing non-essential is running, wired conenction, that's about all I could say. Hope that gets it corrected for you.

I'm aware of the sidebar, and not only does it not cover every card they talk about, they don't talk about every card anyway. I was watching them babble in the last limiited game and I could not see a card Guillome played but it killed something. They never actually circled back to the play. Rich should be calling every card that moves and periodically updating the game state.

Pat Chapin guested on a podcast last month where he was talking about one of his favorite subjects: making Magic be as universally accepted as Poker. And he complimented the way the design has moved, but said our approach to coverage is terrible. And he's right. In fact he named my pet peeve:

They make 0 effort to show us the players' hands.

How much TV coverage would Poker get if they never showed the hole cards? As Chapin mentioned, poker coverage even gives expected win percentages as they go along. So even if you don't know how bad it is to draw to an inside straight against two pair, anyone can watch and see the guy sucked out and think "what a lucksack." You don't even need to understand poker to tell what's happening on each hand.

Meanwhile, for Magic coverage not only do you have to be an avid player but you really miss most of the actions unless you recognize 5px images of the card art when flashed at a 60% angle.

Getting this right wouldn't even take more man-hours:1. Take the cameras that get go over the top 8 tables and put them over the feature match tables. Turn them on and walk away. Just have a live feed, you don't need to commentate on it.2. During the top 8, or even just Finals, take a pair of cameras. Put them next to the players pointing at the hands, and tell the players that any time they pull cards off the top of the library they should show the camera. I'm sure it's no burden to comply. Ideally you'd PIP that feed but even at worst case you could show it to Rich and Brian so they don't have to guess.

It's really very simple. But considering how we don't even get quality replays of Magic Online events - which are inherently recorded - I have to think they just don't care.

Even having the players reveal the cards they draw is probably not enough. For that to actually work they would need to have a graphic that showed players' hands. In one of the deck techs Brian held a card up to the camera but didn't name it. I couldn't read it, so I had to go to a visual spoiler to find out it the art most closely matching the amorphous blob I saw was for Sylvok Lifestaff. I then went back to the video and listened to them both describe the card's use before determining that yes, they are talking about this card. Had I not been able to pause the video I would not have found that out in time to keep up with the rest of the conversation.

During Worlds my brother was actually watching some of the live action with me and was lost just about the entire time. The camera work is atrocious, the announcers can't stay focused enough and you can't see the cards. He gave up entirely after a while. Now this is someone who is not inimately familiar with the new sets but understands the game enough to be able to follow the action. These broadcasts are failing badly at bringing in those fringe players. He'll be up and on his computer at least during some of the Top 8. I doubt he'll even tune in even though it's a couple of mouse clicks away. It's too much effort on the viewer's part to gain an understanding of what is actually taking place.

Patrick's vision of it being accepted like Poker is not realistic, but to get as close as he would like to go it would take an entire rethinking. I don't expect that (although I do expect them to eventually pony up for a high-definition archive), and these days I just ask the announcers to live up to their potential. That correction would go a long way and if they ever did decide to actually do a good job of showing the game, would still be useful then.

I understand web etiquette. I am well aware of the effect of caps and I have never used them in an attempt to exaggerate and beg for attention on a message board or chat room. Caps are rude. They are misused 99% of the time and I cannot begin to tell you how sparingly I utilize them.

With that said:

IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS KAI BUDDE VS. SHUHEI NAKAMURA NOT A COVERED FEATURE MATCH? THERE WERE GUYS WHO GOT MULTIPLE FEATURES AGAINST DUDES THAT MOST IN THE MAGIC COMMUNITY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF. HOW WAS THIS MATCH COMPLETELY UNDERRUG SWEPT? SHAME ON WHATEVER PSYCHOTIC PANEL SELECTS THESE MATCHES. YOU ARE CERTIFIABLY WRONG AND INSANE.

Five Player of the Year titles between two guys and we get to read up on yet another overwhelming victory for John Pro over Jim Nobody. Unbelievable.

@Hacimen: I felt the exact same thing. Since I'm just getting back into Magic after a 10 year absence (and I currently live and work in South Korea, where there are very few game shops accessible, much less people I can speak with about how the game's changed), I find YouTube and this site, amongst others, to be invaluable, but also a bit frustrating.

I often have to have two or three windows open at once while I'm watching a match or even a Deck Tech. That moment with the Sylvok Lifestaff was par for the course. I had to try and track down what "surprise" card they were talking about, because I didn't recognize it nor make out the writing. During games, I see cards quickly flashing across the screen, but it's assumed that I know everything about them.

More often than not, no one bothers to comment on the combos being played (which would be really valuable for me) or what I think is sometimes even more important in Magic - the cards that people didn't play, as in "Well, why didn't he Mana Leak that?"

That's what I feel is most lacking from these videos. I want to learn WHY the pros are making the choices they make. I'm sure I could simply copy one of their decks, but I don't think I'd know when to play what.

Lastly, I'm really interested in the decks that appear different but still succeed.

That Nico Bohny deck has its share of expensive cards (Vengevines), but it's refreshing to see a deck with no Planeswalkers. Even if I get lucky in drawing a single Jace the Mind Sculptor out of the booster box that's waiting on me back in the US, it's easy to start feeling like you'll never be competitive without shelling out $500 for 8 to 12 planeswalkers. It seems like almost every Top 8 deck has them. If you're going to do a Deck Tech with someone, I feel like Nico's would be the most valuable for new players. Combos like that Glint Hawk/Memnite (and I'm sure there are a ton more) are super-cheap, but really interesting to me.

I'm going to be optimistic about this and assume that they're not doing live quarters so they can do accurate edited coverage with prepared data and recaps of just the key plays, while skipping the shuffling, draw go, etc.

I'm going to be optimistic about this and assume that they're not doing live quarters so they can do accurate edited coverage with prepared data and recaps of just the key plays, while skipping the shuffling, draw go, etc.

I take it back: "Rietzl looked in trouble against Wurmcoil Engine, but he found a way to win."

So not only do we not get any QF coverage (because of there not being enough room apparently, great planning!!) but there's tons of horizontal distortion lines whenever there's a lot of movement (which I'm guessing is cause they're broadcasting an interlaced signal). Nice.

Still way too much showing of faces as well. I don't care what their facial expression is, show the game!

Aside from the too much face time recently I've liked all the previous coverages (and I started playing during Antiquities so I have followed every PT coverage they've ever done) and this is by far the worst one. Not showing the quarterfinals is just a massive massive fail.

Argh, you just TOLD me game 2 of Boros on Boros is going on and you're showing me the SBing and shuffling of the most boring match of the two in the semis.

EDITED : Nevermind. I'm happy they're accomodating Paul's playing in the GP. Just as long as you're not making me miss games for no reason. This beats UpperDeck's old stance that registering in a second tournament automatically dropped you from the other one you're in.

No quarter final coverage is really bad. If Richard or Brian have an explanation they could offer that would be much appreciated.

Also - could you pass on to the camera crew that not being able to see the hands when it shows a close up sort of defeats the point. I know this isn't just me - my friends watching this are experiencing the same "fuzzy-ness" on close ups of hands.

Other than that... keep up the good work!

Ps. Please don't have the quarters highlights covered by Evan Erwin. There is more to the highlights of a match than "he played a card, then he played a card *rinse repeat*... player a won because he beat player b"

Thanks for that. If it's a physical limitation then that's not their fault and I support them doing the best they could. It's just that at this point WotC's unfortunate situations look indistinguishable from their intentional decisions.

I actually think the coverage is good now that we're on it, and 100% support them trying to work around Rietzl in the GP. There's a ton of room for improvement, but for what they do it's well-enough done.